Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Regional Business Head in the grade of Senior B2 Sale – Whether “Workman” under Section 2(s) – Maintainability of Reference to the Labour Court –
On 22.6.2009, the Respondent was appointed as Regional Business Head (South), in the grade of Senior Manager (B2) Sale with annual package of Rs.22 lakhs including variable pay of Rs.8.80 lakhs under the Sales Incentive Plan. The respondent worked as Team Leader and Regional Business Head head. The team of four Account Managers (Sales) of four South States was working under his supervision and control.
On 9.5.2011, the resignation of the respondent was accepted and he was paid the amount of Rs.5,92,538/- as full and final settlement.
After 19 months, the respondent filed petition before the Deputy Commissioner alleging forceful resignation. On 27.6.2013, after failure of conciliation and after rejecting the contentions of the appellant that ID Act is not applicable, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act.
On 5.9.2017, the Labour Court passed the Award that the respondent failed to plead and prove that he was a workman and rejected the reference.
However, the learned Single Judge held that there was absence of power in the respondent to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary inquiry against other employees and therefore, the respondent was a workman. This was confirmed by the Division Bench.
HELD that the moot question is whether the respondent would or would not come within the definitional stipulation of a “workman” as laid out under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Clause 5.5 of the appointment letter shows that it was in managerial cadre. The annexure to the appointment letter shows many perks given to the respondent. Even prior to joining the appellant company, the respondent worked in managerial capacity in another organisation and his professional experience in various companies The application of the respondent to the appellant was for “Head Operations”. He worked supervisory role on the managers. Unless a person proves that he is employed to perform any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work, such person is not a workman. An employee discharging managerial duties and functions, may not as a matter of course, be vested with the powers of appointment and discharge of other employees. Bearing due regard to the nature of duties performed by the respondent, we are satisfied that the same do not entail him being placed under the cover of Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
Judgment dated 2.4.2024 in Civil Appeal No.5187 of 2023 of M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.S.Raghavendra
